Where and what? How was it dated/aged?

 

I'm not going to give you a dissertation on it. The evidence that supports geologic time, the big bang theory and stellar evolution is well defined.

 

Feel free to come sit in on my science classes sometime or google it yourself. I'll ask you first, though, if you have an open mind to believe that it could be true vs. starting out convinced that it's not.

I hate when articles lead in with "Scientists say". First, who are the scientists and are they worth a crap? Are they reputable? Is the science repeatable and solid or is there alot of conjecture and speculation.

 

You ever wonder who in the hell the 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed are? I've never been asked. Never been surveyed. I belong to all of the organizations that the rest of the dentists belong to. You want to know why those 9 out of 10 no one knows? Because it's bull hockey. Just for kicks, lets's google "stupid claims made by scientists" over the years. It's hard to say what we will get. We could go back to the "earth was flat" crew and go from there with terrible claims throughout the ages. I hate when the media runs with catchy headlines to grab attention and then from a distance when you step back and analyze that statement, you realize it's a retarded notion. Question, does anyone on this board, or should I say would anyone on this board wager their homes that in 3 years+ that there will be no ice at the north pole?

In my best Chris Carter, COME ON MAN!

 

You must have read only the title and not the article.

I'm not going to give you a dissertation on it. The evidence that supports geologic time, the big bang theory and stellar evolution is well defined.

 

Feel free to come sit in on my science classes sometime or google it yourself. I'll ask you first, though, if you have an open mind to believe that it could be true vs. starting out convinced that it's not.

I do. I also think that some if not most of the "aging" of the planet is theory. We couldn't even get the scientists to discern the age of the shroud of Turin some years ago. I studied this a great deal, I understand the fossil formation, sediment deposit and all of the other avenues that scientists have "theorized" an age of the planet. Name one that is repeatable. Name one that has solid definable pattern. I can stop this debate here if you're gonna give me the "just because it's not there doesn't mean is doesn't exist or we haven't discovered it yet". And I say that respectfully. I think the aging of the planet is theoretical, no more no less.

You must have read only the title and not the article.

I read the entire article. You missed my point with the grandstanding of the media about the subject.

When you teach Big Bang and evolution, do you also teach the holes in that theory?

I do. I also think that some if not most of the "aging" of the planet is theory. We couldn't even get the scientists to discern the age of the shroud of Turin some years ago. I studied this a great deal, I understand the fossil formation, sediment deposit and all of the other avenues that scientists have "theorized" an age of the planet. Name one that is repeatable. Name one that has solid definable pattern. I can stop this debate here if you're gonna give me the "just because it's not there doesn't mean is doesn't exist or we haven't discovered it yet". And I say that respectfully. I think the aging of the planet is theoretical, no more no less.

 

This post shows that you misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory. I'm not sure that we can have a scientific discussion without that basic understanding.

I read the entire article. You missed my point with the grandstanding of the media about the subject.

 

I did not. But the article does not say that there will be no ice left at the North Pole. The title alone is misleading. So, in asking people if they believe/would bet there house, etc., is just as much grandstanding as the article's title.

When you teach Big Bang and evolution, do you also teach the holes in that theory?

 

Those are two very separate theories, so which "that" are you referring to?

 

Additionally, I do not teach evolution, as that is not my subject matter. I teach stellar evolution.

I'm guessing Al Gore in the second picture...

Guess again :sssh:

Guess again :sssh:

I take back the guessing. I KNOW that's who it is and for obvious reasons.

This post shows that you misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory. I'm not sure that we can have a scientific discussion without that basic understanding.

No. You'd be mistaken. You assume way too much about me. So, I'm out of this one. Have at it. I now don't know what theory means. Wow, my hopes of being published once again are now dashed. Salute.

I have a friend who legitimately believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It is impossible to have any kind of serious conversation with him about scientifically proven facts or ideas without his religious beliefs trumping any reasonable sense he, as a human being, should have.

 

Whether or not you think global warming is true or not, first realize that carbon and other gases keep our planet warm, then think about what would happen if there were more of these elements in the atmosphere, and yes, you are right, that equates to a warmer planet. We produce billions of tons of extra carbon every year that this planet has never experienced in the billions of years of its existence, and the neglectful thinking that dominates our culture is the reason that the environment and the economy both are on irreversible and inevitable paths to destruction.

I don't think they started until late 1800s, BUT to say the evidence is foolish is even more Foolish. I don't think cavemen kept temp records, too worried about the local t-rex

Who said evidence it foolish? I said jumping to conclusions based on such a small sample is foolish. How do we know what is currently happening doesn't happen every couple hundred years?

I have a question. How many of you believe there was an ice age?

I'm guessing Al Gore in the second picture...

 

Since it's fowl, and after reading all the posts, I'm certain that the first pic is of 'Run To State'...

 

Simply because no one knows the complete truth on the matter is no excuse to dismiss it as quacky. Doing so is terribly irresponsible. Isn't it a bit ironic that RTS seems to imply, just like so many other non-visionaries in history, that those who seek the truth are quacks?